The Charm of Nuclear Weapons

The representatives of every nation say its weapons and military exist to deter aggression. No one ever believes it. This is nothing new. The Romans famously claimed all their conquests were in self-defense. The same goes for individual weapons systems; they are supposed to be scary enough to deter aggressors. The modern industrial arms race really picked up steam (literally as well as figuratively) in the late 19^th century, especially (but not limited to) with regard to naval weaponry. Better armor called forth better guns to defeat it. New classes of vessels such as torpedo boats begat counter-vessels such as torpedo boat destroyers. On land (and, later, air) the firepower race accelerated. For a few decades, many people really believed these developments were making war “unthinkable.” Hiram Maxim, inventor of the Maxim machine gun, said, “Only a general who was a barbarian would send his men to certain death against the concentrated power of my new gun." In World War I, generals from every combatant army did exactly that.
 
Yet there was a hint by the end of WW1 that some weapons really might be too scary to use. Poison gas was not used on the battlefield in World War 2. Experience in WW1 had indicated that there was no military advantage to be gained when both sides employed it; gas just pointlessly increased suffering without changing the balance of forces on the ground. So in WW2 even in desperate circumstances no party resorted to it on the battlefield. However, later in the 20^th century not all militaries were so circumspect, notably in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88).
 
So far, however, nuclear weapons truly have been different. Since 1949 when the US monopoly of nuclear weapons was broken, they really have deterred. The risk of retaliation has made them too scary to use. Nine nations currently possess nuclear weapons, eight of them openly. (Israel doesn’t acknowledge possessing them but everyone assumes it does; South Africa dismantled its nukes after 1989.) Only China has announced a “no first use” policy; all the others reserve the right to use them not just in retaliation but in circumstances where the existence of the state is at risk. Possession of these weapons has not deterred proxy wars, but it has deterred the nuclear armed powers from tangling with each other directly. It must have occurred to both Moammar Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein that things might have gone differently had they been so armed. It clearly occurs to the leadership of Iran. The risk, of course, even assuming sane leadership all around, is miscalculation during diplomatic brinkmanship games. If one side or another feels existentially threatened, a limited tactical demonstration of nuclear force could escalate out of control. This always has been and remains the most likely scenario for a nuclear exchange if one ever happens.
 

M65 "Atomic Annie" tactical artillery

The West, at present, has been deterred from direct intervention in Ukraine as one obvious example, and for good reason. If anyone has doubts about that reason, I suggest visiting the website NUKEMAP , which allows the user to choose a geographical location, choose an explosive power in kilotons, and see the results. (Strategic ICBMs and SLBMS typically have warheads in the hundreds of kilotons; gravity bombs from bombers can be in the thousands of kilotons [aka megatons].)
 
According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “As of early 2022, we estimate that Russia has a stockpile of approximately 4,477 nuclear warheads assigned for use by long-range strategic launchers and shorter-range tactical nuclear forces, which is a slight decrease from last year.” Of these, 1,588 strategic warheads are deployed: 812 on land-based missiles, 576 on submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and 200 at heavy bomber bases. 977 strategic warheads are in storage, though they could be activated in short order. 1,912 tactical warheads are operational: some are seaborne and others are intended for land battlefield use. (What is tactical and what is strategic has more to do with how a weapon is used than explosive power per se, but in general tactical nukes are in the 10s of kilotons while strategic nukes are in the 100s of kilotons or more.) Another 1,500 warheads are retired but upgradable. This is a total of 5,977 warheads.
 
US forces are comparable. So perhaps some caution – in both directions to be sure – is justified. If unconvinced, use the NUKEMAP calculator 5,977 times.

Sammy Salvo - A Mushroom Cloud (1961)